DOI article:
Mount, Harry: Shaftesbury V. Richardson: A Counterfactual Exercise
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.56525#0011
10
HARRY MOUNT
reading in modern French theorists, both artistic and literary.42 However, these references were as likely to be
negative as positive - throughout his writings Shaftesbury lost no opportunity to attack French writers (and,
indeed, French painters, French culture and French politics). The modern source he mentions most frequently
is Roland Fréart de Chambray’s Idée de la perfection de la peinture (Paris 1662), a book which Shaftesbury al-
most always refers to in a negative light.43 Shaftesbury was especially critical of what he believed to be Fréart’s
misunderstandings of Raphael and his misguided attacks on Michelangelo, whom Fréart had notoriously casti-
gated for his monstrous failures of decorum in the Last Judgment44 Shaftesbury’s dislike of most things French
stemmed from his political beliefs; as a liberal civic humanist he believed in government by an enlightened and
disinterested elite and he despised the absolute monarchy of the French.45 Among other things he saw this form
of government as giving rise to a corrupted taste in art, and he was especially scornful about the harmful effect
that Frenchs taste had had on the great Poussin, who had been compelled by French patrons to produce works
in little rather than on the grand scale which Shaftesbury saw as essential for history painting.46
Like Richardson, however, Shaftesbury was far more indebted to French theorists than he was willing
to admit. Indeed, Fréart was perhaps his most important model, suggesting that the loathing that Shaftesbury
voiced for the Frenchman’s ideas was at least in part a patricidal reflex, a desire to slay his own progenitor.
It was from Fréart, alongside Franciscus Junius’ De pictura veterum, that Shaftesbury derived his five parts
of the art: Invention, Drawing, Colour, Expression and Composition. Richardson expanded this list to seven,
eight, or even nine, depending on how you count them, adding Handling, Grace and Greatness and perhaps
the Sublime to the list given by Junius and Fréart.47 An even more striking debt to Fréart is Shaftesbury’s
willingness to discuss, in his notes for Plasticks, examples of bad artistic practice. The use of examples of
good practice was commonplace in book of art theory at this time. These examples were usually drawn from
the works of Raphael, who was universally agreed to have been the greatest painter of modern times. Fréart,
for example, cited prints after Raphael as his examples,48 while Richardson referred to prints after Raphael,
drawings by him and, above all, to the Raphael tapestry Cartoons then at Hampton Court.49 But Fréart also, as
we have noted, devoted sections of his book to savage attacks on Michelangelo. This use of negative exam-
ples was a more unusual tactic, and one which, for the most part, did not appeal to Richardson. Shaftesbury,
by contrast, makes frequent use of examples of bad practice. His rogues’ gallery included a painting by the
Dutch artist Adriaen van der Werff which he offered as an example of harmful minuteness,50 almost all mod-
ern British portraitists (with the exception of his favourite John Closterman),51 all French artists apart from
Poussin, Claude and Gaspar Dughet,52 and Italian, Spanish and Flemish seventeenth-century artists of the
more florid, sensual or veristic types, including Rubens, Bernini, Pietro da Cortona, Luca Giordano, Jusepe
de Ribera and Caravaggio.53
This prolific use of negative examples would have given Shaftesbury’s book a very different feel from
that of Richardson. It also underlines the extent to which he wanted his book to constitute an operative the-
ory, one that would actually change and guide the tastes of British patrons. By including negative examples
Shaftesbury must have hoped to steer his compatriots away from mindless portraits, minute demonstrations
of Dutch craftsmanship or sensual paintings from Flanders, France and Italy, all of which were, he knew, very
popular amongst his countrymen. Against these works, Shaftesbury set a team of painters whom he held in
high esteem. The captain of this all-star team was Raphael, who is mentioned far more often than any other
painter in the notes to Plasticks and whom Shaftesbury regarded as the only modern painter to have come
42 E.g. Shaftesbury, Plasticks, pp. 184, 209, 222, 236, 245, 253, 255, 286.
43 See e.g. ibidem, pp. 209, 236. 255.
44 Ibidem, pp. 230, 236. For Fréart on Michelangelo see R. Fréart de Chambray, An Idea of the Perfection of Painting, trans.
J. Evelyn, London 1668, pp. 14-15, 67-68.
45 See Klein, op. cit., pp. 189-194.
46 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, pp. 212, 235, 269.
47 See Gibson-Wood, op. cit., p. 149.
48 Fréart de Chambray, An Idea of the Perfection..., pp. 22-24.
49 See e.g. Richardson, Theory of Painting, pp. 93-95, 101-102.
50 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, p. 281. See also H. Mount, A Warning to the Curious: Shaftesbury and Van der Werff in 1712, [in:] The
Visual Culture of Holland in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries and its European Reception, eds J. Jaźwierski, P. Taylor, Lublin 2015,
pp. 67-92.
51 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, pp. 254-255, 257.
52 Ibidem, pp. 271, 277.
53 Ibidem, pp. 226, 239, 242, 243, 252, 256, 271, 277.
HARRY MOUNT
reading in modern French theorists, both artistic and literary.42 However, these references were as likely to be
negative as positive - throughout his writings Shaftesbury lost no opportunity to attack French writers (and,
indeed, French painters, French culture and French politics). The modern source he mentions most frequently
is Roland Fréart de Chambray’s Idée de la perfection de la peinture (Paris 1662), a book which Shaftesbury al-
most always refers to in a negative light.43 Shaftesbury was especially critical of what he believed to be Fréart’s
misunderstandings of Raphael and his misguided attacks on Michelangelo, whom Fréart had notoriously casti-
gated for his monstrous failures of decorum in the Last Judgment44 Shaftesbury’s dislike of most things French
stemmed from his political beliefs; as a liberal civic humanist he believed in government by an enlightened and
disinterested elite and he despised the absolute monarchy of the French.45 Among other things he saw this form
of government as giving rise to a corrupted taste in art, and he was especially scornful about the harmful effect
that Frenchs taste had had on the great Poussin, who had been compelled by French patrons to produce works
in little rather than on the grand scale which Shaftesbury saw as essential for history painting.46
Like Richardson, however, Shaftesbury was far more indebted to French theorists than he was willing
to admit. Indeed, Fréart was perhaps his most important model, suggesting that the loathing that Shaftesbury
voiced for the Frenchman’s ideas was at least in part a patricidal reflex, a desire to slay his own progenitor.
It was from Fréart, alongside Franciscus Junius’ De pictura veterum, that Shaftesbury derived his five parts
of the art: Invention, Drawing, Colour, Expression and Composition. Richardson expanded this list to seven,
eight, or even nine, depending on how you count them, adding Handling, Grace and Greatness and perhaps
the Sublime to the list given by Junius and Fréart.47 An even more striking debt to Fréart is Shaftesbury’s
willingness to discuss, in his notes for Plasticks, examples of bad artistic practice. The use of examples of
good practice was commonplace in book of art theory at this time. These examples were usually drawn from
the works of Raphael, who was universally agreed to have been the greatest painter of modern times. Fréart,
for example, cited prints after Raphael as his examples,48 while Richardson referred to prints after Raphael,
drawings by him and, above all, to the Raphael tapestry Cartoons then at Hampton Court.49 But Fréart also, as
we have noted, devoted sections of his book to savage attacks on Michelangelo. This use of negative exam-
ples was a more unusual tactic, and one which, for the most part, did not appeal to Richardson. Shaftesbury,
by contrast, makes frequent use of examples of bad practice. His rogues’ gallery included a painting by the
Dutch artist Adriaen van der Werff which he offered as an example of harmful minuteness,50 almost all mod-
ern British portraitists (with the exception of his favourite John Closterman),51 all French artists apart from
Poussin, Claude and Gaspar Dughet,52 and Italian, Spanish and Flemish seventeenth-century artists of the
more florid, sensual or veristic types, including Rubens, Bernini, Pietro da Cortona, Luca Giordano, Jusepe
de Ribera and Caravaggio.53
This prolific use of negative examples would have given Shaftesbury’s book a very different feel from
that of Richardson. It also underlines the extent to which he wanted his book to constitute an operative the-
ory, one that would actually change and guide the tastes of British patrons. By including negative examples
Shaftesbury must have hoped to steer his compatriots away from mindless portraits, minute demonstrations
of Dutch craftsmanship or sensual paintings from Flanders, France and Italy, all of which were, he knew, very
popular amongst his countrymen. Against these works, Shaftesbury set a team of painters whom he held in
high esteem. The captain of this all-star team was Raphael, who is mentioned far more often than any other
painter in the notes to Plasticks and whom Shaftesbury regarded as the only modern painter to have come
42 E.g. Shaftesbury, Plasticks, pp. 184, 209, 222, 236, 245, 253, 255, 286.
43 See e.g. ibidem, pp. 209, 236. 255.
44 Ibidem, pp. 230, 236. For Fréart on Michelangelo see R. Fréart de Chambray, An Idea of the Perfection of Painting, trans.
J. Evelyn, London 1668, pp. 14-15, 67-68.
45 See Klein, op. cit., pp. 189-194.
46 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, pp. 212, 235, 269.
47 See Gibson-Wood, op. cit., p. 149.
48 Fréart de Chambray, An Idea of the Perfection..., pp. 22-24.
49 See e.g. Richardson, Theory of Painting, pp. 93-95, 101-102.
50 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, p. 281. See also H. Mount, A Warning to the Curious: Shaftesbury and Van der Werff in 1712, [in:] The
Visual Culture of Holland in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries and its European Reception, eds J. Jaźwierski, P. Taylor, Lublin 2015,
pp. 67-92.
51 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, pp. 254-255, 257.
52 Ibidem, pp. 271, 277.
53 Ibidem, pp. 226, 239, 242, 243, 252, 256, 271, 277.